Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/7/05 P&Z MeetingMeridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 2 of 55 kind of get a feel for how the procedure goes and the way this works is as a project is opened up for discussion, the first thing we do is we ask the staff to present the project from a factual perspective. They take a look at each project as it adheres to the Comprehensive Plan and to ordinance. They try to point out to us some of the strengths and weaknesses and things such as that as it pertains to those two bodies of work. Once the staff has made their presentation, then, the applicant, then, has 15 minutes to present the project and what they are doing is they are selling the project to the Commission. They are trying to show us the strengths of their project from their perspective and they have 15 minutes to make that presentation. After the applicant has made their presentation, then, we open the discussion up to you, the public, for your input. We want to make sure that you hear each and everyone of you and everybody has a right to their opinion and their presentation. We can only take testimony one person speaking at a time and so if, in fact, you have got some thoughts as anybody's making their presentation, we ask that you hold those comments until it's your turn to speak. Each of you will be given three minutes to present your position on any application from which you speak. At the end of about two and a half minutes, this lighting system will change to an amber color and that will mean you have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. If, in fact, there is anybody in the audience that is speaking for a homeowner's association or something such as that where you're speaking for a larger group, we do grant that individual an opportunity to speak longer and I believe that is -- ten minutes? Ten minutes. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: PP 05-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I'd like to start off by opening up the continued Public Hearing on AZ 05-004 and PP 0-006 and hear our staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission: As you mentioned, this is a continued Public Hearing for the Reserve Subdivision. The applicant is proposing 22 build-able lots and seven common lots on 9.08 acres, blocked out in black there on the screen. The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road and on the east side of Jericho with access 60 feet of frontage on Jericho and I'll come back to that in a minute. It's one quarter of a mile south of Chinden Boulevard. The site is currently vacant and has not been platted in the past. The surrounding property to the subject site to the north -- and this is a 2003 aerial, so it's not totally accurate. There is a charter school that's been constructed, the large one acre -- or, excuse me, the large parcel to the north and there are some -- five one acre homes in Westborough Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 3 of 55 Subdivision down Jericho Lane, recently platted. To the south there is asingle-family home on five acres. It's zoned RUT in the county still. To the west is the recently approved Arcadia Subdivision. That's zoned R-8 in the city. To the east are some single-family homes on approximately one acres in the Dunwoody Subdivision. Also, I would like to draw your attention to a couple of other subdivisions in the general vicinity that have recently been approved. Saguaro Canyon was approved just on the other side of Arcadia and Westborough -- I did point out Westborough Subdivision already. That application will be before this board here for re-platting of that soon. Combined Saguaro Canyon and Arcadia have been approved for 466 lots. Currently, there is no east-west connection between Locust Grove and Arcadia through Saguaro Canyon to the west and staff believes that the only major issue -- or I guess point of contention between the submitted preliminary plat and staff comments was the extension of the Jericho Road to and through the proposed site. Here is a copy of their preliminary plat. You can see there is a cul-de-sac with one entrance coming off of Locust Grove Road. There are -- the lots range in size from 8,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet. A couple of other minor changes to the plat that staff has recommended are the -- there is a one acre out parcel along Locust Grove Road as well. We have asked the applicant to swing the road up to give that parcel some frontage, that way in the future when that redevelops, their access out to Locust Grove can be terminated and they can take access internally off of that roadway. The Public Works Department has noted that to get water to this site they would like to see an easement come down approximately mid block between the two islands, somewhere in there. If, in fact, that's what the applicant chooses to do to bring the water service to this development, staff would also like to see that stub street to the south, Fandango Street, moved to be in general alignment. Right now there is that micro-path to the north that goes up to that school site and we'd just like to see that for pedestrian fluidity, if you will, that that stay in that alignment if that stub street switches over there. I believe that is the end of my comments. We are recommending approval, again, with that -- with some fairly minor changes. The stub street extension or Jericho Road extension is the biggest one and ACHD has also required that -- required them to extend their street in to connect to Jericho Road and they are, actually, requiring more frontage to that out parcel than city staff has recommended, but if the staff is comfortable with this and the recommended conditions of approval, we have not seen the revision from the applicant with the recommended conditions, but believe that they can be made and still maintain, basically, this same design. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. I think the last thing Craig Hood was just talking about minor revisions and I guess I'll say that those are actually a little greater revisions than just minor revisions. We may have to do a little bit of redrawing before we get back in front of you guys. We feel that the revisions that the staff would require -- and if you want to get ahead of me, turn to page 11 of your staff report and it's going to be items two through six. We will talk about those, but just to give you an overview before we jump to those. You remember a few months back -- actually, about a year ago when we first • Meridian Planning & Zoning April. 7, 2005 Page 4 of 55 looked at Saguaro Canyon, big subdivision, then, Jack came in with the Arcadia Subdivision and there was some discussion at that time not wanting to take all four hundred and some odd laps worth of traffic out of Saguaro to get to Chinden up through the Jericho Road. And, then, now we are talking about connecting Jericho Road to this subdivision. We talked about Arcadia. We talked at that time about connecting the two subdivisions together and at that time we took out the condition for a stub street between the two. ACHD's commission has put in a quasi stub street and there was all the discussion we had about the quasi stub street and that quasi stub street was this location right here. And, Craig, if you could help me out? Could you go back to the overall site plan? That works great. This is Jericho Road that runs down. This is the Westborough Subdivision that Jim Jewett did in the county.. And we have that emergency vehicle access that runs right here to the school site. And, then, we had 60 feet of access right here, so that everybody from Saguaro and everybody from Arcadia would be able to make it through the EVA or go up to Jericho and at that time you guys took out the condition for a stub street right here to connect all the way through. So, as Craig said, there is 466 units in Saguaro and Arcadia. All those people have -- basically have two options to get east and to the north is up through Arcadia and up to Jericho or right through here now. And so that's an awful lot of traffic that we are going to be putting through this subdivision. So, we met with you guys originally and got rid of the stub street connection to this piece of property and they took it out of your conditions of approval. There was testimony from neighbors saying they didn't want it, there was testimony from us saying we didn't want to see it. It's going to bring an awful lot of traffic through this Reserve Subdivision. Craig, if you can go back to the overall? In conceptualizing this we originally came to the thinking when we met with the city that small lots would be a good thing and, then, we saw what happened to the Leeshire Subdivision when it got to City Council and they said this is way too dense in the front, they didn't like the office out front, so we said let's revise this concept, let's talk about doing some bigger lots and, as Craig said, there is some lots in the back here, .46 of an acre, 20,000 square feet, we have some bigger lots, something that would meet the needs of the city and, then, mix in some smaller lots as well, so we have a different type of product type than just all large lots. The problem is if we make this a through street and bring a whole lot of traffic in, it doesn't make those lots more valuable when you bring in more traffic, it makes them less valuable. So, we were looking to do a product that was something a little bit different, not what you see, cookie cutter pattern in the city, so we thought let's try doing something a little bit different. That all changed when ACHD said you have to bring this road up and connect to this 60 foot wide piece of property or right of way right here. It changed things dramatically. Now, if you to turn page three of the staff report -- I know you're already on page 11, but page three of the staff report has an interesting comment from staff saying this project may not be dense enough. They say it's only 2.4 units to the acre and the Comp Plan says you should have three units to the acre at a minimum. Basically, in order to meet that we'd have to fit eight more units into this area and that's a lot more houses within this subdivision. So, we wanted to keep it a little bit bigger and a larger type of subdivision. We are requesting for that density reduction, I guess, in the Comprehensive Plan. I think it's probably the first time you have heard anybody ask for a density reduction, rather than have more density in a project. So, I guess we are asking for you guys to approve this Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • April 7, 2005 Page 5 of 55 with a density that's actually less than what the Comprehensive Plan is asking for. So, instead of three to eight units per acre, we are asking for two to four -- I guess less than three units per acre. Typically, it's not something the neighbors would fight against. The school is up on the north. Down south, like Craig said, two five-acre pieces with their houses. We would have liked to have worked with those people, but they didn't want to sell at a price that we could afford. Now, onto page 11. Let's talk a little bit about the conditions of approval and those minor changes. The first minor change is connecting this road up and blowing through these two lots. That's a pretty big change to add a roadway all the way up through here, so we are going to have to do some changes there. Item number three on the site specific conditions of approval, it's taking Hidden Path and instead of having this access road jog up this way, they want Hidden Path to come in, a hundred feet of connection right here, and, then, drop back down. That's, obviously, going to change the configuration of these lots and change the configuration of this open space. And that leaves us right to the -- item number five -- jump forward real quick. Item number five wants us to keep all the open space right at .74 acres. Not going to happen. We have to reconfigure this, because it's going to change what happens in this area. That exact number is seven percent of the open space. That's probably going to change with the redesign of this project. We will still come in at five percent, but it's definitely going to change from what it is right now. Number four on that had to deal with the common driveway down here. Obviously, the common driveway isn't going to be necessary anymore in this configuration, because there is a requirement for the road to go up and come back down right here. In addition to that, the variance request that's mentioned in the staff report would no longer be required, because it won't be a cul-de-sac anymore. Item number six -- Craig pointed this out to you already. Moving this micro-path that goes to the school in alignment with the water main that's next to the school. The Planning and Zoning staff, in agreement with that requirement, wants to move this whole street alignment all the way over here. Those are pretty major changes to a plat. It's not just minor changes, it's taking this plat -- getting rid of this traffic circle, moving a road up to here, getting rid of this common driveway, taking this private -- or taking this public pathway and moving it down here and taking this road, moving it farther to the west and, then, reconfiguring this whole configuration right here. We need some time to redesign this and figure out what we are going to do and whether or not we need to add some more units to this site, because it doesn't meet your Comprehensive Plan density. We wanted to do something a little bit different, but in order to match the Comprehensive Plan, you come back to the 8,000 square foot lots, it's just like everybody else, everything is connected, just like everywhere else, and we are back to a cookie cutter design, if we have everything according to the Comprehensive Plan. We wanted to do something a little bit different, we wanted to raise the values, raise the different size of houses in Meridian, to give you variety, instead of just doing the common place. You know, we got Westborough above with one-acre lots. We have got Dunwoody across the street with two and half. We have got Larkwood with their acreage. This would fit somewhere in between that, with the half acre to the quarter acre, to sub-quarter acre lots. So, it gets you a mix of that, which is also something the Comprehensive Plan has asked for. We'd like to have you approve this tonight, but, obviously, in light of what ACHD's requested and all the changes that staff requested, we have to make some changes to this in order to make • Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 6 of 55 this work for you. We are working on a redesign for this. I don't know if it's going to come back looking exactly like this. Like Craig said, I think it's going to look at lot different. We are going to be getting rid of probably traffic circles, because there is not necessarily a need for one down at the end anymore without a cul-de-sac. And the owner of the property had intended on building his house on this lot and without that lot being there it changes things for the owner, because it changes the subdivision. It's no longer a quiet subdivision, but it's carrying the through traffic of 466 lots. So, we are going to need some time. We'd love some direction from you as to what you would like to see and we will have to come back to you, but we'd like to know what you feel about the density of this project, if that's something that you actually think is a good thing, if we should go the lower density or the higher density. And we'd love to hear what you'd like to see us do with this open space as you drive in, if this road has to move up, if it should be aligned just a straight shot straight through. Just some questions and some comments from you guys would be great. So, I'd turn the time over for you guys for questions and ask what you would like for us to do. Rohm: Wow, that's -- I appreciate it, I'll tell you. Borup: I do have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Yes. Borup: First of all, what -- now you mentioned staff requesting a lot of -- a lot of changes and they have several, but how many of them are in addition to what ACHD has asked for? McKinnon: This is in addition to ACHD. Borup: The alignment? McKinnon: The alignment of the path moving -- Borup: That's what I thought. McKinnon: -- lining up the open space requirement of seven percent that stafFs putting on there what we had originally proposed. That's not -- it doesn't -- it's going to change and that's something that would have to change with the ACHD requirements, but that's not a -- Borup: You know, maybe they don't stay this way, but my interpretation of what staff was saying is that in realigning that street you could conceivably add a couple more building lots, but you're probably needing that for your drainage area, so maybe not. My assumption was they just were saying that -- leave the lot density where it was and that open space would stay open space. If it does align straight in, actually, you will be gaining space, you're not going to be losing space. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • April 7, 2005 Page 7 of 55 McKinnon: Well, that depends on what happens -- Borup: Well, if the road was lined up straight, like you're saying, you got less -- you got less pavement there and if you got less, I assume that means the difference is going to go into open space. McKinnon: Well, actually, let me go a little bit deeper into what happens with the realignment up here. If we align our roadway here, we wouldn't be the full road section. This becomes back to your half plus 12, with the 40 feet of road, rather that the whole section, because the sidewalk -- we are, obviously, not going to build the sidewalk across here with the rolled curb for this person for his development. The city is asking us to go ahead and build the right of way here. We won't complete that right of way, they will complete that right of way. And so that changes what happens on theirs, because they have to dedicate right of way, put the sidewalk further back, and align it without sidewalk -- it changes everything that happens right here. Borup: I didn't -- was that your understanding of what staff was asking for? McKinnon: Yeah. It is what staff is asking for. Borup: To do the half -- McKinnon: They are asking us to provide access from the right of way to that. They are not asking us to build the roadway for them, they are asking us to provide access to them with right of way. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: And so that changes what happens on their property, because now they have a setback and they have to dedicate some right of way as well for their property. They are not getting a free ride on this, they are going to have to do some of their own construction of sidewalk and road there. Borup: I don't think that changes the common area size enough to be of any significance. McKinnon: Well, like Commissioner Moe pointed out, additional lots could be placed in that area if the road is moved significantly in that -- Borup: And I assume that's what staff meant by saying that the common area would stay common area. And you had mentioned that staff was talking about that it doesn't comply and I think they were doing an analysis of the Comp Plan, of course strictly reading that, but it also mentioned that -- that there is a one step allowance, plus their final statement was they recommend approval. I don't think they are objecting to density specifically, unless there is -- unless there is a lot of objections from the public here tonight or other commissioners. Meridian Planning & Zoning • April 7, 2005 Page 8 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. McKinnon, I have a question. If we don't provide the access at the east side of the property for -- I don't have a pointer. Right there. McKinnon: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: How are we proposing that that property is going to access -- McKinnon: Craig, can you -- Newton-Huckabay: They are not going to access onto Locust Grove I don't think. McKinnon: Craig, can you go back to the overall site plan? What we had originally proposed -- the city, actually, owns this lot right here. This is a well lot. And the city is going to have to take access to that well lot off of Locust Grove. There will be an access on Locust Grove for this well lot right there. They are not going to take access from this subdivision through this guy's property -- through this gentleman's property and, then, onto their well lot. They will have access. What we originally discussed with the city was that if you're going to have to have an access there, why not go ahead and have a shared access. There is an access there right now for the existing single-family home. The home fronts on Locust Grove. The driveway fronts onto Locust Grove and the garage is easily accessible off of Locust Grove. What would happen is you would have to close off this driveway point, wrap around the house to get into the garage. And they are asking us to go ahead and provide access through here, so that this gentleman can develop his small portion of land back here and still keep an access for Locust Grove there. Currently, they have access on Locust Grove, but we are hoping that the city could make that work by using a shared access there. but the city and the Ada County Highway District have felt that it would be more appropriate to close off their access, go ahead and grant the city well access, and go ahead and say you have to provide access to these guys back here. That's where we are at. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And when I draw out how it would look there at Jericho, does it kind of come in like a Y that's out of Arcadia, is that how -- yeah. McKinnon: Is this similar to your Y? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. McKinnon: Yeah. That's kind of the configuration that it would have to look like. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. McKinnon: And, then, you have the emergency vehicle access on the north side. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, you're drawing it out the same way that Iwould --okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 9 of 55 Borup: So, your -- Mr. McKinnon, you're saying there is no possibility that -- McKinnon: That -- Borup: Oh, let me see that. Moe: Yeah. Like that. Borup: So, there is no possibility to bring that road further south? McKinnon: Jericho? Borup: No. Yeah. I mean Jericho. Newton-Huckabay: There is more to run into Jericho. McKinnon: Jericho is actually -- you can see where it comes in right here. That's the far east point of Jericho, so you can't drag it any further onto this piece of property. What will happen is this will come up -- Borup: Unless Arcadia was redesigned. McKinnon: Unless Arcadia was redesigned. That's correct. Borup: Or I assume on both projects. McKinnon: Well, Arcadia is already through, so the construction drawings are already done for that. Borup: Well, but if it went further to the south, you wouldn't lose a lot that you're losing now with that road tie in. McKinnon: Then further, then, running it straight through? Borup: Well, more in line with the existing road, then, you -- you wouldn't be losing that lot. McKinnon: You have -- there is a couple things -- you have aSaguaro -- Craig, can you go back to the overall -- Borup: That's okay. I -- McKinnon: I was just going to say, the problem is in Saguaro Canyon you have got a straight shot that's -- if you add that to a straight shot all the way through, it's going to be two-thirds of a mile of a straight roadway all the way out to Locust Grove. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 10 of 55 Borup: I see. McKinnon: And so that becomes just a monster road. You have to do something to keep traffic from going straight through and zipping through that. One of the ideas we had is to put those traffic calming circles in there, but if we take out that cul-de-sac, that traffic circle goes away and that's some of the extra open space that we were talking about that will go away. You don't have a need for a secondary traffic circle anymore at the end of that cul-de-sac, because putting a traffic circle with no traffic in between it, it just doesn't make sense. Rohm: Well, Dave, the map that you just showed here, it looks like you have come up with some solutions that meet both Ada County Highway District and the staff report and it looks like you're moving in the right direction, just based what I can see before us here. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Maybe there is public testimony on this one. Rohm: Well -- and I'm sure there will be, but before we move to the public testimony, we want to make sure that we are at least on the same page with the applicant. McKinnon: Chairman Rohm -- can I call you that tonight? Rohm: Whatever. McKinnon: Whatever. Okay. We are getting closer. We will have to reconfigure some things here. I don't know what we'd do -- I don't know what we are doing with these lots in here. All of a sudden you have got what's not really a cul-de-sac, it's not really a knuckle, and you have got a really weird chunk of land. I don't know how you deal with that. And beyond being able to figure out kind of where we are at with this, there is a lot of design that needs to go into this, is what are we going to do for this, guy, how much the road -- we align that road straight up, and, then, we have got to make sure that the owner is happy with the final product. If it's not something that he wants to do, you know, it's something we could say let's come back at a later date and do something different and come back in with just a -- just a straight road that runs in there and just do 8,000 square foot lots to meet the ordinance and away we go and maybe there is more money to be had in that, instead of doing something a little bit different. So, we have got to make sure that, beyond me being happy and you being happy, that the owner is happy with what we come up with. So, I'm getting there, but I'm not quite there yet. So, we need a little bit more time to figure out what we are doing and where we are going with that. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 11 of 55 Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Dave. The only person we have signed up is Paul Hertado. Go ahead and come up. And state your name and address, please. Hertado: My name is Paul Hertado. I live at 5885 North Locust Grove Road, which is the lot south of the property proposed. The five acres. Our concerns are -- is that our living, since we have been there, is kind of a farm life. We do raise a couple livestock there for butchering and eating purposes, plus we have horses. We just want to know how that's going to affect us in our daily life and so on and so forth once this gets approved. We also have an irrigation ditch that runs straight down that property line between there that provides water for both the five acre lots and how that's going to be maintained and so on and so forth. Plus, along that ditch line there has been several wild trees that have come up there, some on his property, some on mine, or right on the fence line. How are we going to address that, who is going to be responsible for removing those or if they do need to be removed or what's going affect us on. And that's what our concerns are. Rohm: I think that I can answer some of your questions for you, just -- just as a general statement. Irrigation rights and water flow cannot be taken away from you for the development of any other property. That's just a course of business. That's the way that works. And as far as your existing lifestyle with your agricultural applications on your property, that, too, is a protected right and the development of this project or any other project does not in any way take away from your rights to use your property as you -- it currently exists. Hertado: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: You bet. Is there anybody else that would like to testify before this -- Hood: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Just a moment. Go ahead, Craig. Hood: I'll let Mr. Lee go ahead and testify. I was just going to clarify a couple of things, but t can go ahead and wait until his testimony -- I just wanted to clarify the minor changes, I guess, and that I felt comfortable with the changes being verbal and not having to see that redesign, but if the applicant would like to have us remand it back and come back to Planning and Zoning Commission so I can review it and make any other changes, that's where my minor comment was, that I felt comfortable with the comments being before City Council to draw these up -- and the only thing with that was the applicant's have known about the -- since they came in and did apre-app that we were going to push for a stub street, the time to redesign -- and they have had the staff report for over a month, so that there hasn't been enough time to redesign that is a little bit -- without trying to defend myself too much, they have had some time to do a redesign. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 12 of 55 Rohm: And I don't have any problem with that, Craig. I think if the applicant is aware that we are hesitant to move forward without any kind of a redesign, then, I think that's probably the right answer. So, I appreciate your comments, but the applicant appears to be willing to go back to the-drawing board and take another look at it to meet the expectations of ACHD and zoning's -- or planning staff and I think that that's probably the direction this is going to go, but I'd like to take the rest of the public testimony and, then, we will move from there. Thanks, Craig. Borup: Yeah. While Mr. Lee is coming up, ACHD's report is dated March 16th, so that information has been available since then. Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road. The infamous Leeshire property. And I did attend the neighborhood meeting for this project. I thought it was well planned out. I thought that it was an improvement on the cookie cutter design that we see all the time. My only concern is with access. I have got a building on Fairview, on the corner of Stonehenge, where my driveway comes out and gets cutoff within about ten feet, which was extremely poor planning at the time when they allowed the Stonehenge Subdivision to come passed us. But I see kind of the same thing here with this highway department and city is trying to avoid with this area right up there in the front. But I think if they are going to have to put a stub road back here through Jericho, I think when Mr. Hertado's property gets developed right here and the long skinny five acre piece next to his, which between Leeshire, my property here, and Arcadia and Reserve, but if Jericho Road -- you were talking about maybe extending that, it would solve a lot of problems if it did come straight down through, even if it butted into our property. We are going to have to stub a street here anyway and we are already going to stub a street into Arcadia and we are stubbing a street into Saguaro Canyon and we got a stub street into Larkwood, so we are stubbing all over the place. But if you're talking about long shots, we have got a long shot from Saguaro Canyon that's going to go straight out to Locust Grove and there is not too many ways to get around that, because this is our house and you got room for one road and the shot starts way back here and it's going to go straight forward. So, Reserve Subdivision is not the only subdivision that would get a straight shot, there would be a lot of traffic going down ours, but if they are going to reconsider this Jericho Road issue here, even though they have already got construction drawings for Arcadia, it, to me, makes a lot of sense to just extend Jericho Road down, which is going to take some of the pressure off of them, it will take some of the pressure off of us, and it will solve the problems of giving access to Mr. Hertado's property at the back and the property from Mr. Almond on this side. But, all in all, I did attend their neighborhood meeting and I think that their project was pretty sound with having some bigger lots at the back. If Jericho is extended, I think that might solve some problems of the owner's lot in the back of the property. Those are my only comments. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to offer testimony in this application? Okay. Discussion? Borup: You want to give the applicant an opportunity to respond? Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • April 7, 2005 Page 13 of 55 Rohm: If he'd like to or -- I think we are -- Borup: Probably the only question that wasn't answered was that about the trees that I noticed. And I don't know if that's pertinent right now. Hood: Mr. Chair, while Dave is coming forward, I'll let you know that there is note placed on the plat for the Right To Farm Act, is standard, and this development cannot - -- kind of goes along with the water rights, they cannot, you know, impede his right to farm that property for livestock purposes, so -- McKinnon: Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't have said it better, other than you just said the Right To Farm Act, and the irrigation, you guys nailed those right on the head. The trees are something we will have to work out with Mr. Hertado. I have been out to the site a couple times, I don't know exactly -- I haven't seen the pins and how everything is placed, but if there is some trees there that need to be saved, so forth, it is something that will just have to be worked out. I don't know exactly what that is, but that's something that, you know, has to get worked out and if it's a party tree, I don't know exactly how you deal with that, if it's right down the middle of the property line. Those are things that just need to be worked out, but I think that's something that can be worked out together. I think that's about it. I think you guys covered everything. I don't think we are going to pursue extending Jericho all the way south. I think that's -- Rohm: Okay. Before you sit down, Dave, as a Commission we are here to try and work with both the development community and staff and if you think that it's to the betterment of this project as a whole for us to continue this until the next meeting, so you can go back and reconfigure your lots and address the issue and, then, have us take a look at it in its adjusted format, we can do that, or we can act on it as it currently is, with stating conditions that you will have to address before City Council and, quite honestly, I don't have -- I don't care, other than it definitely needs to take into consideration those things that have been presented tonight. So, I guess I'm looking for a little direction from you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, may I make just a point here and maybe this might help a lot as well. Quite frankly, I will not feel very comfortable at all without seeing the changes on this plan before it would go forward to City Council. So, I'm going to recommend that the applicant do plan to have us continue this hearing and that's -- I guess my question to you would be how soon will you have something to come back to us with? Newton-Huckabay: We are not open on April 21st. McKinnon: Commissioner -- Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I agree with Commissioner Moe. I'm not comfortable moving this forward until -- actually, I have got my drawing, but once we get it on engineering and take a look at it and see what it looks like, I'm not comfortable moving it forward. I'd like to work with you and work with staff. A lot of those conditions that are in the staff report, especially conditions, you know, two Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 14 of 55 through six, those are all -- they would all go away with the reconfiguration. I don't think they necessarily need to go to Council with that. I think that, you know, we are not going to be ready in two weeks, obviously, for the 21st. A month is fine. If we are too full on that next meeting, you know, put us out a little bit, but I want to be comfortable bringing it back to you guys before it moves on. Moe: I agree. Rohm: Dave, it looks like there is room to put you on the May 5th agenda -- Moe: I would go to the 19th is what I would want. Rohm: The 19th? Moe: Yeah. I think that -- that's a month out, basically. A little over a month. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think you might ask Craig how quick -- how much time he's going to need take a look at it, .too. Hood: Whatever date the -- whatever date the Commission decides. I'd like to have something at least ten days before the hearing date, that gives me three or four days, anyway, to review, make the changes, get a memo out to you, revise the staff report, so at least ten days, preferably 14. So, depending on how soon you can have it to me. McKinnon: I think the 19th would be the best. Rohm: Okay. That's what we are looking for. McKinnon: Does that work for you guys? That works for us. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thanks, Dave. McKinnon: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ -- oh, we continue it, don't we? Borup: Yeah. We want to continue it. Rohm: Continue it. Newton-Huckabay: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006, to the regular scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 19th, 2005. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 15 of 55 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006 to the regular scheduled meeting of May 19th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 05-009 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 1.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Mike and Gloria Urwin by Mike and Gloria Urwin - 2560 South Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-009 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you. The subject property is a request for annexation and zoning of 1.06 acres, commonly known as Lot 1, Block 1, in Volkman Subdivision. It's located on the east side of Meridian Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of Victory Road. There is currently a single family home and some outbuildings on the site. This property is designated as low density residential in the Comprehensive Future Land Use Map. However, the Comprehensive Plan and the resolution passed within the past six months, anyways, that allows parcels less than three acres in size that have frontage on an arterial street, to request an office zone. That is what you have before you tonight is the request for an office. The area vicinity map. To the north of the site is a canal. A single-family home. It's zoned RUT in the county. To the south is a veterinarian clinic. To the east is a single family home on approximately eight acres, zoned RUT in the county. And to the west is a large 30 plus acre parcel owned by the Nazarene Church. Here is the conceptual site plan that the applicant has submitted with their annexation and zoning request. In addition to converting the existing residence that you see there on the southwest side of the map, they are proposing to change access location into a site that is currently provided in this location. Conceptually, they would like to move it up to the north property line and construct some additional parking for the office use. Staff is recommending that they be granted this access on an interim basis. They do not have frontage anywhere else, other than the state highway. The access would go away when access is provided from either of the parcels here -- one of the conditions in the development agreement that's proposed is that this parcel provide cross-access to the parcels to the north and south and that will be reciprocated when we see development applications and annexation applications from these parcels to develop and that is because -- the main reason that that's -- we'd like to see that as a temporary, rather a permanent access, high speeds here on a type four roadway, we try to limit access points onto that roadway and we can get them down to a public street -- there are public streets in this location and in this location. We are not quite sure exactly how this is going to develop. It is all shown as medium density residential or low density residential. Staff could envision some of these other parcels with frontage on the highway also requesting the same zone and office use on the arterial, rather than the single-family use. But getting access to these public streets is critical and that's why the request is there that the cross-access be provided and that the access be on an interim • CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE April 7, 2005 ITEM # 4 PROJECT NUMBER AZ O5-004 PROJECT NAME The Reserve Subdivision NAME (PLEASE PRINT FOR I AGAINSTINEUTRAL